[ad_1]
A federal judge on Monday filed a lawsuit filed by two California cities against fossil fuel companies on the costs of fighting climate change. The ruling is a stinging defeat for the plaintiffs, San Francisco and Oakland, and raises warning flags for other local governments across the United States who have filed similar lawsuits, including in New York.
Judge William Alsup of the San Francisco District Court recognized the science of global warming and the great risks to the planet, as well as the oil and gas companies sued. But in his ruling, Justice Alsup said the courts were not the appropriate place to deal with such global issues, and he rejected the legal theory put forward by the cities.
"The problem deserves a solution on a larger scale than can be provided by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case," wrote Judge Alsup in a 16-page notice.
The cities wanted the defendants – including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell – to help pay for projects like protecting the coast from flooding.
But Judge Alsup said the other two branches of government would handle the problems more properly. "The court will keep its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches," he wrote.
A business group that has been very critical about the lawsuits, the National Manufacturers Association, expressed its satisfaction with the dismissal of the case. "From the moment these unfounded prosecutions were filed, we argued that the courtroom was not the appropriate venue to meet this global challenge," said Jay's general manager, Jay Timmons.
Judge Alsup said that climate change is an issue of global importance, but that companies are not the only ones responsible. "Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world have literally been fueled by oil and coal," he wrote. "Without these fuels, virtually all our monumental progress would have been impossible."
In light of this, he asked, "Would it really be fair to ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and to blame global warming on those who provided what we had request? Is it really fair, in light of these benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?
A Chevron executive issued a similar note in response to the decision. "Reliable and affordable energy is not a public nuisance, but a public necessity," said R. Hewitt Pate, vice president and general counsel for Chevron.
Cities have relied on the area of public nuisance under common law, which allows courts to hold parties accountable for actions that interfere with the use of property.
Previous attempts to use nuisance claims in climate change lawsuits have been heard under federal law in cases such as American Electric Power v. Connecticut, but none has succeeded. In a 2011 unanimous decision, the Supreme Court declared that the Clean Air Act had replaced the federal law on nuisance, leaving the application and regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Cases brought by San Francisco, Oakland, and other cities and counties have attempted to use state-level nuisance doctrine, based on the theory that State has not been moved in the same way. Fossil fuel companies have tried to submit cases to federal courts under federal law.
Alsup J., in the earlier stages of the litigation, suggested that federal courts could still hear such cases. He kept the lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Oakland before him, and ordered an unusual "tutorial" on climate change to become familiar with scientific issues.
But in a different courtroom in the same building, Judge Vince Chhabria – also of the San Francisco Federal Court – sent similar cases involving the counties of San Mateo and Marin and the city of Imperial Beach in the state court. This dispute is ongoing.
Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change at Columbia University, said that by ruling that the courts were not appropriate, Alsup JA insisted on the need for Balance the benefits of energy production and the adverse effects of climate. change, an exercise in balance achieved not only by the US government but also by governments around the world. He said it was too early to say whether the decision would persuade other judges to hear similar cases in the country.
John Coté, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney, said the city was considering its options. "This is obviously not the decision we wanted, but that does not mean the case is over," he said. "We are reviewing the order and will soon decide on our next steps."
Mr. Coté added that the city was in agreement with Judge Alsup on an important point. "We are pleased that the court has recognized that the science of global warming is no longer disputed," he said. "Our litigation has forced a public court to conduct research on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny that it is real and valid. We believe that these companies are responsible for the harm they caused. "
John Schwartz is part of the climate team. Since joining the Times in 2000, he has covered science, law, technology, the space program and more, and he has written for almost all sections. @jswatz • Facebook
[ad_2]
Source link
